Six months have passed since Mark Zuckerberg wrote one open letter announces its vision metaverset and rebranding Facebook to Meta.
Although it painted an attractive picture – “in the metaverse you will be able to do almost anything you can imagine,” we were told – the letter left a lot of room for interpretation, which sparked debate on what form this new virtual world could take. .
Some have argued that Metaverse already exists (at least in its building blocks), while others say the necessary criteria will not be met for many years. But by and large, it is implied that the metaverse will consist of a series of interconnected spaces that connect the physical and digital worlds, through the fusion of traditional and augmented reality (XR) platforms.
In his letter, Zuckerberg acknowledged that the meta-verse “will not be created by a single company” and will require new governance models to ensure that “more people have a share in the future.”
He also promised to offer developers and creative low fees “in as many cases as possible”, to encourage innovation and “maximize the overall creative economy”.
However, there are already signs that this utopian vision can be quickly dissolved under the weight of the monopolistic impulse. Instead, we could end up with a closed-system metavers run by Meta alone, supported by its many services, powered by its server infrastructure and accessible via its Oculus headset.
But can a metaverse controlled by a single party be considered a metaverse?
The issue of interoperability
While the meta-verse is expected to enable many new consumer experiences (from virtual concerts to a new generation of online games), it will also house commercial services designed to support Cooperation.
One such application is Arthur, a Virtual reality dating platform specially designed for business use. The idea is not that employees should spend their entire working day in the virtual world, but rather to switch between media seamlessly depending on the nature of the current activity.
“In 2022 and beyond, we must realize that the old system was obsolete long before the pandemic. The disadvantages we see staring at a screen for ten hours a day are related to the fact that we are not created to work in 2D, we is created to work in 3D, ”explains Christoph Fleischmann, founder of Arthur.
But realizing the full potential of the meta-verse will depend on more than the ability to switch between computer platforms. Free movement between services is just as important, he told us.
“A critical element will be interoperability; the ability to move goods and identify through apps. The moment it becomes a metaverse is when we can move from a business-focused service to a social app and back again, ”Fleischmann said.
“It all depends on how much we can reduce friction, because openness is the key to metavers becoming a ubiquitous technology that everyone embraces.”
Asked about the feasibility of this level of interoperability, given the companies’ tendencies to take over the metaverse, Fleischmann admitted that universal standards need to be established – and that soon.
He also said he expects technologies such as blockchain to play a role in decentralizing the management of the metaverse, strengthening democracy through technological mechanisms that are, in theory, resistant to manipulation.
“It’s an inherently difficult challenge for a company to build the meta-verse on its own,” Fleischmann told us. “Organizations can own parts of Metaverse, just like real-world countries, but no one can own Metaverse alone.”
The concern, however, is that effective standardization will not become a reality fast enough to prevent the metaverse from being divided into a multitude of minivers, each owned and operated by a single organization and separated by impregnable boundaries.
Helmet war
Another player with ambitions in space is HTC, which makes the popular Vive series VR headsetone of the few legitimate competitors to the Metas Oculus line.
In a scenario where Meta has absolute control over the metaverse, HTC risks being put on the sidelines; the quality of a company’s hardware does not matter if it is not supported by core metaverse applications.
Talk to Tech Radar Pro At MWC earlier this year, the company’s hardware manager, Shen Ye, explained that Metaverse is something HTC “has always built”, long before it got a name and was elevated to the general public consciousness. The implicit suggestion was that no company has the right to own the concept.
Although Shen was not asked to comment specifically on Meta’s position, Shen was also keen to emphasize the importance of open standards, both to promote broad hardware support and to enable the integration of multi-vendor services.
“Ultimately, we want standards to be established. There are W3 standards for the web, but there are currently no equivalent for metaverse. We will try to take advantage of as many open standards as possible.
“Our goal is to aim for openness; it’s not about building a closed metaverse – we want other universes to connect with ours. We are not trying to create a brick garden here.
Like Fleischmann, Shen took a step toward the potential of blockchain to help support the decentralization of metaverse. Specifically, he highlighted the role of cryptocurrencies, which disintermediate Payments and NFTs that could help enforce virtual property rules in the virtual world.
As a demonstration of its commitment to the idea, HTC recently launched a new crypto-centric XR Navigatorbuilt on the foundation of a project abandoned by Mozilla.
“We see Vive Browser as the key to the metaverse that enables experiences across virtual reality, computer and smartphone. Our goal is to have a cross-platform browser that supports Web 3.0 and cryptocurrencies, ”Shen told us.
HTC also recently announced Vive Connect, a cross-platform hub area where people can view their NFTs and other digital assets and participate in virtual events. The long-term strategy is likely to establish the service as a gateway to the metaverse on which users rely.
All the good sounds
So far, Meta has made all the right sounds. The company says it wants to collaborate with third parties, help set open standards, prioritize cybersecurity and privacyand resist unfair market dynamics.
By publishing the open letter, however, Zuckerberg implicitly placed his company (and to some extent himself) as the founder of the metaverse. In fact, Meta has claimed a digital domain that does not yet exist.
Given the resources and infrastructure available to the company and the commitment of its founders alleged concern with the metaverse project, other space players may have the right to be on guard.
No one knows what Metaverse will look like in the end, but Big Tech’s story tells us that it’s hardly as open, fair and inclusive as we’re told.